WHAT QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN

FORMULATED AND ANSWERED

IN A 30-YEAR RESEARCH PROGRAM

TO STUDY

I
COMPLEXITY?
Notes by John N. Warfield
Jnwarfield@aol.com
August, 1998

Page I
 ABSTRACT

A research program was initiated in 1968 to study complexity. It was intended that the study
would span the landscape of complexity, from the most fundamental scientific basis to the most
demanding applications in society. Thirty years later, in 1998, with much documentation
available in numerous locations, the highlights of this research activity can be presented as the
response to a variety of questions.

To facilitate the sequential presentation of the questions and responses, four categories are used
to "house" the sequence. These four categories were found by examining about 600
transparencies that had been developed in the past 10 years of work, and placing them into 110
intermediate categories, then placing those into 10 categories, and finally placing the 10 into the
4 used here as headings. The four headings are:

Part 1. Infrastructure of Science. Under this heading one finds the key linguistic aspects
related to organizing complexity, the mathematics of structure, the faulty assumptions that
prevent organizations from working effectively with complexity, the contributions of thought
leaders from the past, the schools of thought that are most prominent, and software for
structuring complexity.

Part 2. Science of Complexity. Under this heading one finds discussion of issues related to
science, the seven ways of portraying complexity, a mention of the 20 Laws of Complexity, the
metrics for measuring complexity, some applications information, and a discussion of the
infrastructure needed to work with complexity in organizations.

Part 3. Applications of the Science of Complexity. Under this heading one sees the Work
Program of Complexity, the Behavioral Allocation Menu relating to what actors should carry out
what components of the Work Program, behavioral pathologies, typical products from the
components of the Work Program, aspects of design, the shared linguistic domain, and an
explanation of how practitioners benefit from learning the Infrastructure of Science.

Part 4. Site of Applications (The Organization). Issues related to applications infrastructure

are discussed here, along with Interactive Management (the system designed specifically to
resolve complexity in organizations), some examples of how it has been used, more about the
metrics of complexity, issues related to the interpretation of the structural models, vertical
coherence in organizations, and strategies for enhancing organizational performance.

Page 2
 QUESTIONS RESOLVED IN STUDYING COMPLEXITY
1968-1998
John N. Warfield

Part 1. Infrastructure of Science

1. What are the key structural attributes of prose?

Linearity in sequencing, parallel in generating words.

2. Why is prose completely inadequate as a portrayal language for complexity?

Research shows that structures of complexity are non-linear, hence they are structurally
incompatible with the constraints invoked by prose.

3. Is mathematics appropriate as a language to portray complexity?

George Friedman's Findings About the Equations of Physics

Friedman found that the average number of variables in an equation of physics is 4, and the
maximum is 7. The number of problems in a typical problematic situation approaches 100.

Benjamin Peirce's Definition of Mathematics: its Relevance to Structure

Peirce defined mathematics as the science of necessary conclusions.

While the language of mathematics is appropriate for representing aspects of complexity in a

restricted way, the best component of mathematics for representing complexity is not the
commonly used mathematics of physics. Research shows that structures of complexity
frequently involve hundreds of variables, hence the computerized version of formal logic, as
offered in the Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) system, provides the essential capacity that
is utterly lacking in the equations of physical science. The mathematics of formal logic embody
directly the logic relations that are implied by “necessary conclusions", and the algorithm of ISM
assures that the logic portrayals are consistent. If the mathematics of physics is relevant to
complexity, it must be applied AFTER the logic has been found, portrayed, and interpreted.

For most people, mathematics is impenetrable, so a prose-graphics combination is used to enable

the broad communication that is often required to resolve complexity cooperatively.

Page Three
4. What has been discovered empirically about the necessary requirements of
language in order that it can portray complexity? Where? By whom? In what
publications?

A metalanguage is required (ordinary prose being acceptable) to formulate the basic phrases
that will be structured, while an object language (based in formal logic) is required to translate
those formulations into symbolic expressions that are suitable for computer logic calculations.

The core mathematics of analysis was published in this book:

F. Harary, R. F. Norman, and D. Cartwright (1965): STRUCTURAL MODELS. AN

INTRODUCTION TO THE THEORY OF DIRECTED GRAPHS, New York: Wiley.

The formulations necessary for synthesis of structural models were published in the following:

J. N. Warfield (1974): STRUCTURING COMPLEX SYSTEMS, Columbus: Battelle.

J. N. Warfield (1976): SOCIETAL SYSTEMS: Planning, Policy, and Complexity, New York:
Wiley Interscience.

The metalanguage is used to generate the raw material, the mathematically-based object
language is used for computer-assisted processing, and the prose-graphics language is used for
human beings to interpret and learn about problematic situations.

6. What are the "Killer Assumptions" that undermine high-quality work pertaining
to complexity?

So far, 17 Killer Assumptions have been found. It is expected that still more will be discovered.
Several hundred thousand possible combinations of these 17 can be formed, any one of which
can constitute a Killer Framework in someone's mind, and any Killer Framework may be
effective in assuring that complexity cannot be resolved.

The Killer Assumptions found to date are distributed among these six categories: Assumptions
about:

• Complexity • Learning
• Evidence • Group Processes
• High-Level Executives and Their Decisions • Infrastructure

Page 4
6. Who are the "Thought Leaders" from the past that have contributed to showing
how to overcome these Killer Assumptions? In what publications do their ideas
appear? How have their ideas been tested in problematic situations?

The Thought Leaders from the past who have been identified to date are:

• Peter Abelard • F. A. von Hayek

• Aristotle • D. Hilbert
• W. R. Ashby • A. Lavoisier
• G. Boole • H. Lasswell
• K. Boulding • G. Leibniz
• A. De Morgan • F. S. C. Northrop
• J. Dewey (minimal) • C. S. Peirce
• M. Foucault • A. Pope
• G. Galelel • G. Vickers
• J. W. Gibbs • A. N. Whitehead

Their publications appear in most academic libraries. For a 90-page partial bibliography, see
"The IASIS File"., which is located at this web site:
http://www.statewave.com/tiers_1_4/BIBWARF.htm
More bibliographical information can be found at.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/t-iasis

Their ideas have been tested repeatedly in Interactive Management Workshops, in which the
Interactive Management processes incorporate many of the ideas set forth by these Thought
Leaders.

7. From what areas of study do the Thought Leaders arise?

The areas of study of these Thought Leaders (all deceased) were:

• Formal Logic (Analytic Philosophy) • Political Science

• Cybernetics • Law, Mathematics, and Librarianship
• Systems Science • Philosophy
• Speculative Philosophy • Chemistry, Mathematics, Philosophy,
• History of Systems of Thought Logic, and Precision Measurements
• Physics • Poetry
• Physical Chemistry • High-Level Administration in
• Statistical Mechanics Government and Industry
• Vector Analysis • Mathematics and Philosophy
• Mathematics • Economics
• Law and Chemistry

Page 5
8. Why might one correctly conclude that complexity cannot be adequately dealt
with by (a) individuals?, (b) groups?, (c) organizations? What are the implications
for management of complexity in organizations?

(a) Individuals lack the breadth of experience. They are limited in the span of immediate recall,
which means that they cannot study collectives of concepts to arrive at logic relationships among
them through individual effort, unsupported by other avenues. (b) Groups are known to suffer
from groupthink, clanthink, and spreadthink: pathologies which have been demonstrated to bring
about very poor outcomes. (c) Organizations engender structural incompetence by an
overabundance of regulations, a lack of vertical linguistic coherence, and inadequate
infrastructure for working with complexity.

Management of complexity in an organization requires a system that annuls or compensates for

the pathologies of individuals, groups, and the organization. Morever the organization should
provide the infrastructure that is required to work with complexity.

9. What are the six types of relationships? What is meant by the Discretionary
Model Management Parameters? How can using them help avoid
underconceptualizations in science and in applications?

The six types of relationships are: Influence, Definitive, Comparitive, Spatial, Temporal, and
Mathematical. Relationships can belong to more than one type.

The Model Management Parameters consist of all of the ideas represented in the following
definitions which should be applied in order to specify a model. Notably most of these
parameters are habitually ignored in developing models.

MODEL MANAGEMENT

DEFINITIONS

SITUATION. That system (something which a human being proposes to study for the purpose of
exploring changes within it) of current interest, along with the environment of that system.

DIMENSIONAL DESCRIPTION OF A SYSTEM. A set of dimensions and selections from

dimensions, such that at least one selection from each dimension is represented in the description
of the system.

Page 6
DIMENSION (CHARACTERISTIC) OF A SYSTEM. A monadic category germane to the
system, without which the system cannot be adequately described.

DIMENSIONALITY OF A SYSTEM. The number N of dimensions which the human detects

and names in modeling a system, which meets the ongoing test of completeness, by noting
whether the Law of Requisite Variety is satisfied in the operations that involve the system.

SPECIFICS. Components of a dimension. The components could be, e.g., problems or options. If
they are options, a subset might be chosen for purposes of a particular design.

SELECTED SPECIFIC. A specific that a human chooses as part of the dimensional description
of a system. Choice is available when a system is being designed, otherwise when an
observable system is being defined the choice is only linguistic and not otherwise
arbitrary.

NAME (DOMAIN) OF A DIMENSION. The name assigned to the total set of specifics for a
particular dimension, i. e., to the set of components of that dimension.

RELATIONAL DESCRIPTION OF A SYSTEM. A two-part package consisting of

(a) Linguistic Part. A set of relationships required to describe mutual conditions involving two or
more dimensions, (b) Mathematical Part. A set of mutual conditions (dyadic or higher, i. e.,
involving two or more dimensions) specified symbolically in a recognized mathematical
area.

CARTESIAN SPACE OF A SYSTEM. The set of ordered N-TUPLES of all specifics of the
system, where N is the number of dimensions of the system, i.e., the system's dimensionality.

FIELD DESCRIPTION OF A SYSTEM. An array in which each dimension appears as a column

heading, followed by the set of all specifics of that dimension, each being written with a
bullet preceding it for syntactical clarity.

PROFILE DESCRIPTION OF A SYSTEM. A graphical construction that begins with the Field
Description of the System, and which contains a TIE LINE, and for which all selected
specifics are directly connected to the TIE LINE by SELECTION LINES running from
the bullets of the selected specifics to the TIE LINE. Typically a profile is made to
specify a particular design alternative, in which the dimensions consist of sets of options.
With an appropriate computer, the selected components can be distinguished by choice of
font, instead of using selection lines.

Page 7
POWER MAP (LATTICE-BASED-MAP DESCRIPTION OF A SYSTEM). A hierarchical
structure beginning at the bottom (level Zero) with the Φ-element (representing the empty
set), and continuing vertically, based on an inclusion relationship, such that the ith level
contains a number of members equal to the number of combinations of n things taken i at
a time; each member containing i dimensions, and such that every possible combination
of the N dimensions taken i at a time is represented in the ith level.

Thus the first level contains N members, each being one dimension of the system; the second
level contains N(N-1)/2 members, each being a unique pair of system dimensions; etc., while the
top level contains one member, that being the total set of dimensions of the system.

MONADIC. Containing only one element, which is selected to be unique in its type in the
situation under study

DYADIC. Containing exactly two elements, each being monadic.

TRIADIC.. Containing exactly three elements, each being monadic.

n-ADIC. Containing exactly n elements, each being monadic.

MODEL GRAPH. A bipartite graph with two sets (two types) of vertices and one set of lines
(edges), each line (edge) connecting one type of vertex to the other type of vertex. One
set of vertices, called "nodes", corresponds to a model's relationships. The other set of
vertices, called "knots", corresponds to the model's variables (dimensions). (Friedman's
formulation)

If these Model Management ideas are articulated, it becomes possible to subject the model to
scrutiny and possible improvement, but if all that is presented is the model itself, little help can
be provided. Effective Model Management will be ongoing, and will keep the model updated for
maximum utility.

10. What schools of thought promise to continue to obscure the nature of

complexity, by introducing popular (but wrongly-conceived) ideas about
complexity into business schools and other academic arenas?

The Indifference School, the Systems Dynamics School, the Chaos Theory School, and the
Adaptive Systems School. For details see: "Five Schools of Thought About Complexity:
Implications for Design and Process Science", Tanik, M. M., et al (Eds.), Integrated Design and
Process Technology, IDPT- Vol 2, 1996. (Proc. Society for Design and Process Science, Austin,
TX, 389-394. See also C. François (1998): Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics, Munich:
Naur.
Page 8
11. What is the Mathematics of Structure? Why is that little-known branch of
mathematics the appropriate foundation for developing interpretive models? Why
can't people use that directly, instead of relying on software assistance? How
does this mathematics ensure consistency in structuring problematic situations?

The Mathematics of Structure consists of Boolean algebra, sets, binary relations, binary matrices,
binary matrix models, digraphs, digraph maps, digraph models, and partition mathematics, all
integrated into a high-utility package for structuring conceptual information.

People cannot use it directly because the human mind is limited in its processing capability, and
the necessary human interaction has to be designed for effectiveness and efficiency, taking into
account appropriate infrastructural requirements. The mathematics assures consistency (but not
correctness) by focusing only on transitive relationships and enforcing Harary's Boolean matrix
equation M2 = M as a condition of a reachability matrix that is convertible to a digraph-like
structure, in which the interpretation has been entered onto the graphic (as in e-g.,
problematiques, enhancement structures, DELTA charts, etc.).

12. What software packages are available to apply in structuring complexity?

The Cogniscope™ of CWA, Ltd; Synergistic Solution™ of DeSyMa, Ltd; the Tlatocan of
IT'ESM, Campus Monterrey; the GMU ISM for Windows package; and the older DOS-Based
GMU ISM software which has been made available for free downloading, along with a User's
Guide at this web address: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/t-iasis.

13. In working with complexity, how are the roles of individuals, groups, and
organizations identified and allocated, in order to overcome the behavioral
limitations associated with each?

Roles are assigned to individuals or to groups or to the organization, according to which is most
likely to be capable and effective in each action component. These role assignments are made in
conjunction with the Work Program of Complexity, to be described later in this document; and
are further illuminated in John N. Warfield and A. Roxana Cárdenas (1994), A Handbook of
Interactive Management, Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press.
Page 9
Part 2. Science of Complexity

1. What can be learned from the Thought Leaders about the meaning of
complexity"?

The Nature of Complexity. In his famous paper published in 1878, titled "How to Make our
Ideas Clear", Charles Sanders Peirce talked about false distinctions that are sometimes made in
discussing beliefs. He wrote the following:

"One singular deception of this sort, which often occurs, is to mistake the sensation produced by our own
unclearness of thought for a character of the object we are thinking. Instead of perceiving that the obscurity is
purely subjective, we fancy that we contemplate a quality of the object which is essentially mysterious .. ...

"... So long as this deception lasts, it obviously puts an impassable barrier in the way of perspicuous thinking; so
that it equally interests the opponents of rational thought to perpetuate it, and its adherents to guard against it.

After reflecting on this quotation, I believe that complexity belongs in the same category with
other human feelings (sensations) such as dismay, horror, love, hate, and confusion. That is, it is
a feeling that is aroused when people cannot comprehend the object of interest to them. It is the
composite effect of perplexity which, acting within an individual, is shared by the larger relevant
society.

Those who think that complexity is a property of what is being observed have to face up to the
challenge of trying to find, in a multitude of observable systems, an attribute that is shared across
all the many different types of observable systems. Even if that could be done, the question
would remain about how they could do this for those systems that are merely being thought
about, such as systems to be designed, which do not even have any observable character. And
then they would also have to explain why some observable systems seem to be understood by
some people, but not by others. Finally, it is worth noting that when people propose some
measurement of complexity, inevitably it will involves something that people have thought about
or perceived, as opposed to measuring something like the color blue, for example, which can be
subjected to physical instrumentation.

2. Is a science of complexity possible? What must a science of complexity entail?

Why?

Yes, a science of complexity is possible, and is partly completed now. Although nowadays, it
seems that almost anything can be called "a science" without questions being raised, it is still
true that anything called a science ought to meet the classical standards, set forth in response to
Question 4 below.

Page 10
3. Why should present-day practitioners become knowledgeable about the
Science of Complexity: Why not just draw on it, as practitioners do in other areas
of engineering, for example? (Hint: what or who are "fashion accessories for top
management", according to M. C. Jackson?)

It is well-established today that top-level managers in organizations draw on “management

gurus" who promote points of view that do not meet scientific standards. M. C. Jackson calls
some of these gurus “fashion accessories for top management". Some of the gurus have been
described as Witch Doctors in a popular book by two Editors of the journal The Economist.
Practitioners who believe that a science of complexity underpins a management practice need to
be armed to defend and even promote their views inside the organization, as a way of competing
with the gurus.

4. What minimum set of components should a science contain in order to deserve

to be called a science? Who monitors, assesses, and "blows the whistle on" the
current propensity to call everything a science that is taught about high-tech
subject matter and modern management (e.g., "computer science", "management
science")?

Based on the historical concept, a science should involve the following:

• A constructive chronology of its evolution

• Laws, with explanations of their origins
• Empirical evidence to support the findings
• Archival reports that show results in detail
• Primitive definitions (often equivalent to key assumptions)
• A "community of scholars" (terminology from C. S. Peirce) who not only teach and test the
science, but who also constantly search for shortcomings and try to correct them. In effect they
offer stewardship to the science.

At present there seems to be a shortage of the "communities ".

5. How does the Science of Complexity meet the minimum-components

requirement?

The chronological requirements are met by showing the evolution of thought about thought,
from the early days of Aristotle to the twentieth century. The book by L. M. Bochenski called A
History of Formal Logic shows much of the evolution. The book by M. Foucault titled The
Archaeology of Knowledge describes the shortcomings that need to be corrected. The paper
"Twenty Laws of Complexity: Science Applicable in Organizations" in Systems Research and
Behavioral Science (1999) gives the Laws and shows their origins. Empirical evidence is
offered

Page 11
I
in several papers, such as "The Magical Number Three, Plus or Minus Zero" (1988) and
"Spreadthink: Explaining Ineffective Groups" (1995), by John N. Warfield; the former appearing
in the journal Cybernetics and Systems and the latter in the journal Systems Research. These
articles form part of the archival products, and other parts of this can be found on the web site:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/t-iasis. The community of scholars is small, but is
recognizable. Some members are identified along with their work in an appendix to the paper
"Twenty Laws of Complexity" mentioned above. Still others are identified in Appendix 5 in the
book by J. N. Warfield and A. R. Cárdenas (1994), titled A Handbook of Interactive
Management, Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press.

6. What are the Seven Ways to Portray Complexity that are known so far? How
can such portrayals be generated?

• Arrow-Bullet Diagrams (which are mappable from square binary matrices, and which
correspond to digraphs)
• Element-Relation Diagrams (which are mappable from incidence matrices, and which
correspond to bipartite relations)
• Fields (which are mappable from multiple, square binary matrices, and which correspond to
multiple digraphs)
• Profiles (which correspond to multiple binary vectors, and also correspond to Boolean spaces)
• Total Inclusion Structures (which correspond to distributive lattices and to power sets of a
given base set)
• Partition Structures (which correspond to the non-distributive lattices of all partitions of a base
set)
• DELTA Charts (which are restricted to use with temporal relationships, and which sacrifice
direct mathematical connections to versatility in applications)

These portrayals can be generated with the help of the Interactive Management
system.

7. What do these seven ways have in common? How do they differ?

The components of the seven portrayals can all be generated using the Interactive Management
(IM) system. Two of the portrayals require special attention. The Element-Relation diagrams do
not correspond to digraphs. The DELTA Charts may have more than one element type. The other
five fit the standard pattern of IM work, but some of them are best portrayed in the field type of
representation, while others are best portrayed in the structurally-isomorphic digraph mode.

Many practitioners do not understand the commonality that is present. They do not realize
Page 12
that the ISM computer-assistance process enables the structures to be developed with machine
help. As a result, they tend to let individuals develop the structures manually, instead of getting
the benefits of group activity, with all of the valuable by-products that accrue from that.

8. What are the 20 Laws of Complexity? What is the taxonomy of these Laws?

The 20 Laws are published (1999) in Systems Research and Behavioral Science. The
Laws fall into three categories: Behavioral, Media-Related, and Mathematics-Based.

9. What are the five metrics (indexes) of complexity? How can the values be
determined? What are the "reference values" (values at the boundary between
normal situations and the problematic situations involving complexity)? How are
the reference values justified?

The metrics are:

The Miller Index, relating to the quantity of information involved

The De Morgan Index, relating to the number of distinct binary relationships involved
The Spreadthink Index, relating to the differences of opinion among members of an
informed group
The Situational Complexity Index, formed as the product of the first three mentioned
The Aristotle Index, relating to the number of syllogisms found in the problematique

A reference value of 1 can be defined for each of these, with values below 1 indicating absence
of complexity, and values above 1 indicating presence of complexity. In practice, values are
inevitably significantly above 1 for all of these indexes. The use of 1 as the boundary is justified
by research showing the limitations of human minds, arising from the behavioral pathologies.

10 . What data support the significance and measurement of the five indexes?
What organizational managements presently acknowledge them, and apply them
to help determine when to give preeminence to complexity as a driver of
organizational practice and an essential definer of organizational infrastructure?

Numerous applications at the Ford Motor Company have generated data on the indexes. A
thorough treatment of four of them appears in this paper by a member of the Ford Scientific
Research Laboratories:

Scott M. Staley (1995): "Complexity Measurements of Systems Design", in Integrated Design

Page 13
and Process Technology (A. Ertas, C. V. Ramamoorthy, M. M. Tanik, L. I. Esat, F. Veniali, and
Taleb-Bendiab, Editors), IDPT-Volume 1, Austin, Texas, 153-161.

No top-level managements are known that presently acknowledge them..

11. What applications of the Science of Complexity have been made? Where? To
what problematic situations? By whom? With what results?

Numerous successful applications have been described in publications. Among the publications
that identify many of them are:

John N. Warfield (1994): A Science of Generic Design: Managing Complexity Through Systems
Design, Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press.

J. N. Warfield and A. R. Cárdenas (1994), A Handbook of Interactive Management, Ames, IA:

The Iowa State University Press.

12. What infrastructure is required to enable complexity to be resolved?

The best results are obtained if the following infrastructure is provided in an organization:

A situation room dedicated to applications of the science of complexity through the practice of
Interactive Management (such a room is thoroughly described in various publications). Several
organizations have incorporated such a room.

A small IM staff, expert in the application of Interactive Management. Several organizations

have such a staff.

Organizational budgets that support group work on a wide variety of issues. Few organizations
have such a budget line.

Training programs that support the work that goes on.

A corporate observatorium that is maintained and which documents the products of the
application of the science in a highly-visible, cognitively-respectable, and easily accessible
location. See J. N. Warfield (1996), "The Corporate Observatorium: Sustaining Management
Communication and Continuity in an Age of Complexity ", in Tanik, M. M. et al (Eds.),
Integrated Design and Process Technology IDPT-Vol. 2, 1996, (Proc. Society for Design and
Process Science,) Austin,Tx.,169-172.

Page 14
I

Part 3. Applications of the Science of Complexity

1. By what process is complexity resolvable?

Complexity is resolved by following the four work components in the Work Program of
Complexity, being guided by the description of Interactive Management as an implementing
system.

2. What are the four work components of The Work Program of Complexity?

Description
Diagnosis
Design
Implementation

3. What are the four behavioral components of the Behavioral Allocation Menu?

Behavioral Process
Individual Behavior
Group Behavior
Organizational Behavior (induced by membership) in an organization.

4. What is the purpose of the Behavior-Outcomes Matrix?

The purpose is to show how various findings relate to the 16 possible combinations of elements
from the Work Program of Complexity with elements from the Behavioral Allocation Menu. For
example, which of the 20 Laws of Complexity relate to this pair:

(Description, Individual Behavior)?

5. What is meant by "pathologies"? ... by "behavioral pathologies"? .... by

"individual behavioral pathologies"? .... by "group behavioral pathologies"? .... by
"organizational behavioral pathologies"? How do these pathologies inform the
allocations of work when The Work Program of Complexity is underway?

According to my Webster: a pathology can mean "all the conditions, processes, or results of a
particular disease".

Page 15
A behavioral pathology is anything that affects the ability of an 'individual to perform well,
singly or in a group. An individual behavioral pathology of interest in connection with
complexity is that described by G. A. Miller, later by H. A. Simon, and still later by J. N.
Warfield. That is the inability of an individual mind to process more than about seven ideas or,
as Warfield described the using up of the number 7 by 3 ideas and the set of 4 possible
interacting schemes, i.e., (ab), (ac), (bc) and (abc), which represent the distinct interaction modes
of the three elements a, b, and c. Then when the number of elements goes to 4, we have 11
interaction modes, bringing the total sphere of investigation to 15; a number well above Miller's
"magical number seven".

Group pathologies include Groupthink, Clanthink, Spreadthink, and Underconceptualization.

Each of these pathologies has been described in publications, and some case studies are available
in great detail to illustrate them in situations in government and industry.

Organizational pathologies are those induced on both individuals and groups by management
structures, rules and regulations, and organizational politics. The most prominent pathology is
called "structural mcompetence".

The allocation of behavior is carried out according to which behavioral component has the best
qualifications to carry out the relevant work component of the Work Program of Complexity.
Throughout this allocation the Process component of the Behavioral Menu comes from the
carefully designed Interactive Management system, with a White Paper and a Workshop Plan
constructed each time to augment the IM system with the specifics of the particular situation.

6. For each component of the Work Program of Complexity, which behavioral

component is most appropriate as the actor? Why?

Description: best done by groups (8 to 15), because each member has distinctive knowledge
that can be aggregated with the help of Interactive Management

Diagnosis: best done by an individual who is experienced in using the diagnostic aides
developed for interpreting the structures produced in Interactive Management Workshops,
especially in interpreting the Problematique; provided the individual then shares the
diagnosis in an Interpretation Session with the group that produced the results, both to check
out the interpretation, and to make any needed amendments

Design: best done by groups (8 to 15), because each member has distinctive knowledge that can
be aggregated, with the help of Interactive Management

Implementation: best done by the organization (whatever components that are required),
following the Interpretation Session with the group that produced the results, both to check
out the interpretation, and to make any needed amendments.

The allocation of behavior is carried out according to which behavioral component has the
Page 16
best qualifications to carry out the relevant component of the Work Program of Complexity.
Throughout this allocation the Process component of the Behavioral Menu comes from the
carefully designed Interactive Management system, with a White Paper and a Workshop Plan
being constructed each time to augment the IM system with the specifics of the particular
situation.

7. For each component of the Work Program of Complexity, what products can be
constructed that will illuminate that component? How should these products be
constructed?

All products are constructed as described in the Handbook of Interactive Management. These are
the products that are most relevant to particular components of the Work Program of
Complexity:

Description: A Type 1 problematique, a problems field, an attributes field, with computation of

a Type 2 (categories) problematique

Diagnosis: An analysis and classification of problems from the Type 1 problematique, based on
its structural features; computation of indexes of complexity for comparison with earlier studies,
and a comparison of the categories problematique with organizational components to assess who
might be doing what.

Design: An options field with one category for each category in the problems field, at least two
independently-developed options profiles by subgroups, a final options profile selection done in
plenary session; and a DELTA Chart showing what tasks will be performed in order to
implement the design and who will perform those tasks.

Implementation: A Work Breakdown Notebook, keyed to the DELTA Chart, augmenting the
information shown on the chart; and large displays of products of the IM work, along with any
essential aids to interpretation, the displays and interpretive aids being located in the corporate
observatorium for learning, amendment, and archival purposes.

8. For each component of the Work Program of Complexity, what purpose is

served by each of the products that can be constructed for that component?

For the Description: The problematique shows how key problems are interrelated. The problems
field shows the named categories in which the problems lie, any interdependency among the
problems tied to the problem categories (producing clusters of categories), and the sequence in
which design decisions will be made, taking account of the interdependencies.

The attributes field describes the attributes of the system to be designed, along with the
categories in which those attributes can be placed, providing information to show what parts of
the organization may be involved with which attributes.
Page 17
For the Diagnosis: The analysis shows which problems and or problem categories appear to be
critical for immediate action, which problem groups need to be packaged collectively for action,
which problems require review based on what was said about them during the Description work,
and which problems do not seem to require immediate action because more fundamental
problems are sustaining their problematic character. The analysis also shows an overview of the
problematic situation, yielding insights that should be helpful for ongoing management activity.

For the Design: The Options Field shows the wide variety of possible options and the categories
in which those options lie (these being the same categories as found earlier in the Problems
Field).

Each Options Profile corresponds to a particular Design Alternative, being determined in the
light of all the available products from the use of IM, and the final choice made provides the
pattern overview for the planned system design that will resolve the complexity involved 'in the
problematic situation.

For the Implementation: The DELTA Chart shows the planned sequence of activities, events,
and decisions, along with who will be carrying out those activities and making those decisions.
The Work Breakdown Notebook provides the necessary detail to accompany each component of
the DELTA Chart including time required, staff required, cost estimates, etc. The Corporate
Observatorium makes the full panoply of information available across organizational boundaries.

9. For each component of the Work Program of Complexity, why cannot the
products be developed using normal processes?

The complexity involved in the Description and Design activities, as measured by the various
indexes of complexity, is far too high to let normal processes work effectively in meeting
cognitive requirements of the situation, and group work is far too susceptible to the group
pathologies to allow normal processes to be used.

The Diagnosis depends heavily on an ability to interpret structural models, which is not an
ability that is available from persons who work regularly with normal processes.

The Implementation involves a deeper, more profound, knowledge of the problematic situation
than can be provided by normal processes, and may require that this knowledge be widely
available across the organizational boundaries, both for guidance and for possible amendment of
any misunderstandings that might have been incorporated in the structures and interpretations
produced
Page 18
10. For the Design component of the Work Program of Complexity, what process
requirements should be met in order to communicate the various alternative
designs to others who were not involved in developing them?

The processes used should support the development of the structures described in responding to
Question 8 above. The processes should also benefit from the infrastructure recommended to
make the necessary portrayals of the complexity.

People need training in order to know how to read and interpret the structures produced, both to
learn what they show, and to help them envisage any possible amendments that may be required
to improve the implementation.

11. For the Design component of the Work Program of Complexity, what process
requirements should be met in order to explain, to other people who were not
involved in making the choice, why a particular alternative design was chosen for
implementation?

A record should be kept of the discussions that went on in the plenary session where the several
altematives were compared. Among the records to be displayed later are the similarities and
differences among the alternative designs that were considered

12. What is a shared linguistic domain? Why must it be developed during the
progress of The Work Program of Complexity? Why is it more than just a
common vocabulary? Why can it legitimately be called a byproduct of the work?

A shared linguistic domain means that the members of a group of people have each acquired
sufficient commonality in their language that they can discuss a problematic situation knowingly
and be effective in communicating their ideas. Normally such a domain does not exist at the
beginning of the application of Interactive Management, and it is produced as a byproduct of the
work because of the combination of the "clarification " session that always accompanies the
application of the Nominal Group Technique (NGT), and the discussions that go on in applying
Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) to examine the interrelationships among the elements
being structured and the interpretation sessions that follow.

Page 19
13. Why do practitioners need to learn The Infrastructure of Science in order to
become powerful in applying The Science of Complexity?

Even with the carefully developed procedural algorithms that have been described in the
Handbook of Interactive Management, issues always arise in considering whether to apply IM or
how to apply it. Invariably, these issues can be resolved by recourse to the Science of
Complexity.
Page 20
Part 4. Site of Applications (the Organization)

1. Why do organizations exist?

Organizations exist to do things that individuals, acting alone, cannot do. When the benefit of
having multiple actors is chosen, one must accept the accompanying disadvantage of escalating
the burden of communication among members of the organization. When the organization must
cope with complexity, the means of communication must be compatible with the demands of
complexity. Hence it is well to learn what those demands are.

2. What pathologies do large organizations exhibit? What are some of the

undesirable consequences of these pathologies? What is meant by "structural
incompetence"?

In his study of bureaucracies at the Rand Corporation several decades ago (as reported in the
book: Anthony Downs: Inside Bureaucracy) the author showed that behavior in bureaucracies is
predictable, being governed by certain laws that seem to be inherent in large organizational
behavior. These behaviors have little to do with the tasks at hand, and have a lot to do with
personal protection and protection of the organization as a whole. Since many of these behaviors
mitigate against effective individual performance, the concept of "structural incompetence"
was invented by some federal program managers as a blanket terminology for the pathology that
the organization imposes upon the individual. Inevitably this pathology undermines the original
purpose of the organization, and has even produced the "whistle blower" as an innovative means
of helping to provide a correctional bulwark for punishing extremely bad organizational
behavior.

3. When is modeling by groups essential to attaining quality in representation of

complexity?

Modeling by groups is essential any time when (a) the consequences of acting on knowledge of
one individual are potentially severe and (b) there is little reason to expect that the one individual
has sufficient knowledge and experience to select an appropriate course of action.

The proven concept of Spreadthink is very informative in this regard, revealing that people
involved in problematic situations always have different views of what is important, showing us
that no one's point of view is likely to be adequate to resolve the complexity. But pooling of the
group's knowledge has a high probability of succeeding, if properly integrated.. Yet modeling by
groups may be ineffective, if a process is used that is inconsistent with the demands of
complexity.

For more details, see: Warfield, J. N. (1995), "Spreadthink:. Explaining Ineffective Groups",
Systems Research 12(l), 5-14.

Page 21
4. What are the types of models from which informed choices can be made? What
types of models are appropriate for each of the steps in the Work Program of
Complexity?

Models should meet the requirement for the best combination of insight and simplicity. This
typically implies that structural models should be constructed; and that people should be trained
in how to develop, portray, read, and interpret such models. Here are types appropriate for the
steps in the Work Program of Complexity:

Description: Problematique, Problem Field, Attributes Field

Diagnosis: Structural Diagnostics
Design: Options Field, Options Profiles, DELTA Charts
Implementation: Visual Displays with Interpretation Aids.

5. What empirical evidence indicates that engineers and managers cannot read
and interpret interpretive structural models? Should this discrepancy be
corrected? Why?

Professor George T. Perino of the Defense Systems Management College, Fort Belvoir, VA,
provided questionnaires to several hundred certified program managers in the Department of
Defense (almost all of these were in the RSTJ type on the Briggs-Myers rating system). One
questionnaire presented a part of the John Deere pump manufacturing problematique described
in A Science of Generic Design (page 395). It was explained there that the pump situation
involved multiple influences (not just one cause!!) which, upon review of the problematique,
were identified; and the situation was then corrected. Many of the program managers were
mechanical engineers, who already believed they knew quite a bit about pumps and did not need
to rely on the problematique for more information.

One of the questionnaires was a "forced-response" type, where each question offered four
possible responses. Each question involved reading and interpreting the partial problematique.
With this type of questionnaire, the expected correctness score for a random respondent (i. e.,
one answering by choosing a number from 1 to 4 at random) would be 25%.

The respondents average score was about 19%, or worse than a random respondent.

Some possible explanations for this poor performance are:

a) The respondents did not know how to "read" the problematique.

b) The respondents answered based on their previous experience with pumps, disregarding
what the problematique showed.
c) The respondents thought the problematique was like a "PERT" chart or other graphic with
which they had past experience, and they could interpret it as a temporal flow.
d) Some or all of the above.
Page 22
In any case, the conclusion was what experience had previously suggested: namely that because
people receive little or no instruction in how to read structural graphics, an intuitive approach is
not only wrong but dangerous as an approach to decision-making. A further belief is that the
great discrepancy between the amount of time spent in teaching prose (i.e., instruction in English
from kindergarten through college) greatly favors prose as a means of communication at the
expense of the combination of prose and graphics. Administrative action is required to correct
this situation.

A further difficulty is that, through common practice, structural graphics has become in itself an
intuitive means of description and, as commonly used by engineers and others, lacks the rigorous
definition required to make accurate reading of prose-graphics combinations possible. This is a
serious shortcoming in education which one hopes can ultimately be remedied One first step
toward that end is the production of the "Prose-Graphics Glossary of Complexity", for which a
first draft is available, and which will receive ongoing attention in order to arrive at a suitable
first edition.

6. What prevents engineers and managers from reading and interpreting

interpretive structural models? How hard would it be to overcome these
inhibitors?

They have developed many bad habits in relation to structural models, thinking that they can
communicate effectively with them in spite of the inadequate definitions they have internalized.
One of these is to use symbols on the graphic (e. g., arrows), the meaning of which is left to the
imagination of each individual observer. I have proposed that a structural graphic must be
uniquely translatable into prose, as a condition for its acceptance as a vehicle for communication.
This condition is almost always ignored by people who create graphics. Moreover the graphics
"gurus” do nothing to correct the deficiency. Instead they promote graphics types that have been
placed in use which inevitably suffer from inadequate definition. A further difficulty is that most
software programs that purport to support construction of structural graphics suffer from
significant deficiencies.

In principle it is easy to overcome these inhibitors, but the system that could provide a solution is
so insensitive to the problems and indifferent to them, that nothing is likely to happen in the
ftiture unless some professional society with clout rises up and demands action.

7. What is meant by "The Corporate Observatorium"? From what Thought Leader

did this concept arise? Through what means did the thought leader arrive at the
concept? What related concepts are needed to make this concept practical as a
means of overcoming vertical incoherence in organizations?

The concept of observatorium is familiar to those who have seen a small version of the sky,
usually in a domed building. The Corporate Observatorium is a piece of real estate dedicated to a
learning process, where products of high-quality work on complexity are located in highly-
visible formats, along with such learning assists as recordings, video tapes, real people offering
explanations and responding to questions, etc.
Page 23
The original idea came from the work of Harold Lasswell, who studied policy formation
extensively and concluded that the means of providing support to policy designers were very
unsatisfactory. Lasswell also urged that "decision seminar rooms " be built, which are equivalent
to the highly-recommended concept of "situation room" for conducting Interactive Management
Workshops.

For more information, these references can be consulted.

Warfield, J. N. (1996), " The Corporate Observatorium: Sustaining Management Communication

and Continuity in an Age of Complexity", in Tanik, M. M. et al (Eds.), Integrated Design and
Process Technology, Vol. 2 (Proc. Society for Design and Process Science), Austin, Tx, 169-172.

Warfield, J N. (1994), A Science of Generic Design: Managing Complexity Through Systems

Design, Salinas, CA: Intersystems, 1990 (two volume set); Second Edition published by Iowa
State University Press, Ames, IA.

Lasswell, Harold (1971), A Pre- View of the Policy Sciences, New York: American Elsevier.

8. What is Interactive Management (IM)? Why was it developed? How has it been
used in Ford Motor Company?

As defined in the book: J. N. Warfield and A. R. Cardenas (1994), A Handbook of Interactive

Management, IM is "a system of management invented explicitly to apply to the management of
complexity".

Ford Motor Company is one of numerous users. It has been a frequent user, probably doing more
IM Workshops than any large corporation. It has been used on a variety of projects, mostly
relating to system design.

Ford has a program where its employees can make contributions to their communities as part of
their work assignments for Ford. Roy Smith, a Ford employee in the United Kingdom, and a
planner and facilitator of in-house projects at Ford, has learned to use IM effectively, and has
conducted several workshops for community groups in the U. K., gaining high praise from them
for his efforts.

IM was introduced in Ford as a result of the efforts of Dr. Scott M. Staley of the Ford Research
Laboratories. Through his efforts, several hundred Ford employees have taken part in IM
Workshops, and several Ford employees have learned how to serve as staff of such workshops.
Ford has developed and put in place a situation room to carry out IM Workshops.
Page 24
9. How has IM been used in other organizations?

Chapter 1 of the book: J. N. Warfield and A. R Cárdenas (1994), A Handbook of Interactive

Management, tabulates 115 examples of its use in a variety of organizations through the year
1994. Many other applications have taken place since that time, making it almost impossible to
keep a complete record of the projects.

10. What generalized conclusions have been drawn about the demonstrated
utility of IM in a wide variety of applications, with a wide variety of organizations?

Several hundred IM Workshops have taken place since it was introduced. No complaints about
the products have ever been recorded when the recommended processes have been followed.
Numerous evidences of high levels of satisfaction have been noted, and several awards have
been given as a result of the use of IM, some to practitioners and some to organizations.

Hence it is concluded that IM, when applied, as "a system of management invented explicitly to
apply to the management of complexity", has been quite successful, at least in the eyes of the
user organizations, in fulfi1ling the stated purpose.

Some organizations, e.g., The Americans for Indian Opportunity, have said that they had tried
virtually all the other processes promoted by gurus, and found them unsatisfactory but, after
trying Interactive Management, they concluded that it had all the features they had been seeking.

The government of the Mexican State of Guanajuato created an organization with over 250
members specifically to take advantage of the information developed in running more than a
hundred IM workshops with various socioeconomic and political sectors in that State.

Several small consulting firms are based in the use of Interactive Management, and a few
universities provide education in this field.

Interactive Management is one of the few (and possibly the only complexity-oriented) systems
that meets all of these requirements:

a) Full disclosure. Its explanation is widely available in the literature (not described only in
terms of metaphors)

b) Replicability of Process. The explanation is in significant depth, so that replication is

possible, which permits comparisons to establish credibility.

c) Specializing in Resolving Complexity. It is intended only for resolving complexity in

organizations (although some find ISM helpful in their individual projects).

d) Sizeable Record of Adding Value in Applications. It has been applied in many

Page 25
organizations, and has added significant value whenever it has been used.
e) Founded in Science. It is founded in science, the science being thoroughly described, its
origins being identified, and the connections with it being demonstrated.

11. How has the use of IM contributed to an understanding of the essential nature
of complexity?

There is only one system of formal logic that has drawn more than casual interest among a broad
scientific community, that being the so-called "Western logic", associated with such scholars as
Gottfried Leibniz, Augustus De Morgan, George Boole, and Charles Sanders Peirce.

That being the case, with the results being well-defined and now pragmatically useful, IM offers
a unique support system for developing an understanding of what was thought to be complex;
and for arriving at a widely-understood plan of action for resolving the complexity. Because of
this uniqueness, and because there is little that is much more basic than thought as a means
of resolving complexity, IM provides a basis for structuring collective knowledge that is more
basic than products of other systems intended to support design and decision practices.

From the base of knowledge that it provides, not to mention the opportunity for widespread
review and learning, IM offers a sound springboard for the application of other, better known,
formalisms such as quantitative formulae from physics or other sciences.

12. How does the application of Interactive Management lead to and enable the
numerical computation of the Indexes of Complexity? How do the numerical
values of these Indexes of Complexity provide credibility to the underlying
Science of Complexity? Who has tried to invalidate these Indexes? With what
results?

The products of group work aimed at resolving complexity enable data to be accumulated that
relate to the complexity involved This means that one does not need to do artificial experiments
just to collect data, but rather can just draw on the natural outcomes of productive group work as
the source of data. These data can then be introduced into the definitions of the Indexes to enable
computation of the numerical values.

Since comparable Indexes can be computed for different projects, it begins to be possible to see
just how much complexity is involved, and how far the Index values depart from the definition
of "normal situations" to which most common algorithms apply. It is also possible to make
numerical comparisons of relative values among different situations, which gradually helps
management build an intuitive understanding of just how dangerous it is to manage projects that
involve complexity, applying only the normal commonly-understood tools.

Page 26
There is no knowledge available to show that anyone has tried to invalidate these Indexes. Hence
there are no results. It is known that none of the other Schools of Thought about complexity
seem to lack the capacity to arrive at suitable indexes and, as might be imagined, are uninformed
about those applying to IM.

(For a reporter's article on that situation, see the New York Times article by George Johnson:
on "Researchers on Complexity Ponder What It's All About ", Tuesday, May 6, 1997, beginning
on page C1.)

13. What does Fertig's research show about using boxed prose in combined
prose-graphics representations? How do commonly-used engineering graphics
violate her findings? What are the consequences of the use of informal
engineering structural graphics?

In her doctoral dissertation at the University of Virginia (1974), Janet Fertig studied the question
of how much prose should appear in an isolated form (e. g., in a box on a structural graphic) to
enable optimum understanding. Her conclusion was that about 8 words formed the optimum size.
(If just one or two words were used, not enough information was presented to make a valid
assessment. If, say, 20 were used, too many interpretations were cued by the extensive prose.)

These findings are notable in terms of evaluating long-standing engineering practice, in which:

a) Typically one or two words are used in each box of a box-arrow type of graphic.

b) Practitioners are seemingly totally insensitive to the critical importance of adequate

communication (a matter noticed also by the authors of The Witch Doctors).

c) Practitioners seemingly don't comprehend that the capability of reading and interpreting an
entire structural graphic can be severely undermined if just one or two of the prose
components is misinterpreted, imagining perhaps that if the person creating the graphic
understands it, anyone looking at it will likewise understand it.

d) The space requirements for communication fall victim to the use of miniature media,
used regardless of the communication needs: e.g., 8½ by 11 or A4 paper, or computer
screens; instead of using wall-sized space to facilitate group vision and conversation about the
content, interpretation, and quality of particular structural graphics they have produced.

14. What is normally done in using Interactive Management to interpret structural

models and test their quality?

Diagnostic computations based on the created structures are made, and the elements
Page 27
contained on the structure are classified according to the amount and nature of their interactions
with other elements. Persons experienced in reading the structural models prepare interpretation
materials and present them to the group that developed the models, along with the results of the
diagnostic computations. By this means, the group is provided with interpretations of their
products, helping them to gain insight and overview, and providing an opportunity to make any
amendments that might be uncovered. Moreover the presentation and interpretation of the
diagnostic work gives insight into future work and priorities.

15. What is meant by "vertical coherence" in organizations? What evidence exists

that supports the Law of Vertical Incoherence? What are some reasons why
vertical coherence is much to be desired? What is presently being done in your
organization to help ensure that vertical coherence exists? How are these
practices relevant to the Model Management Parameters and the Indexes of
Complexity?

Vertical coherence refers to the existence of visible communication means that cover the
territory from one extreme in the organizational hierarchy to the other. As an example, in his
work to redesign the U. S. Defense Acquisition System, Henry Alberts' groups identified 678
problems. These were placed into 20 categories. The categories were placed into 6 areas. If we
call the lowest level in the hierarchy the Operational Level, the middle level the Tactical Level,
and the top level the Strategic Level, we see that the existence of this 3-level structure provides a
basis for vertical coherence in the organization. The Model Management Parameters help
provide objective ways to assess the quality of a model, and the indexes of complexity help show
that efforts to resolve the issue have not failed just because the people were incompetent; but
rather that competent people require effective processes when working with situations that
produce high values of complexity indexes.

16. What strategy can be applied to help ensure vertical coherence in large
organizations? Who is presently following this strategy? Is anything being done
as part of normal practice to try to create vertical coherence in large
organizations?

If the 3-level structure is kept in mind and supported by high-quality, visible displays; people in
the Strategic Level can see how decisions they make involving one or more of the 6 areas ripple
through the organization into the two lower levels. People in the Operational Level can see how
top management's decisions relate to their own day-to-day problems. And people in the Tactical
Level can see how their work couples or decouples people in the two adjacent levels. All of this
communicability is made possible if the Corporate Observatorium is in place, and if it is kept up
to date as required The price paid for vertical coherence and maintainability of communication is
the cost of providing the real estate required to show the vertical connections and to support the
staff required to get and maintain the displays.

Page 28
17. What are the "Organizational Design Levels"?

It is fairly common for organizations involved in product design to think of these levels:
Component Level, Subsystem Level, System Level, Organizational Level. To these we would
add three other Levels, these being the interface Levels among the other four Levels. If the
interface Levels are not recognized, they will not be budgeted. Budgets drive activity.

18. What is "The Alberts Pattern"? Why is the Alberts Pattern seen as a potential
organizational template to help provide vertical coherence?

In his work to lead the redesign of the U. S, Defense Acquisition System, Henry Alberts’ groups
identified 678 problems. These were placed into 20 categories. The categories were placed into 6
areas. If we call the lowest level in the hierarchy the Operational Level, the middle level the
Tactical Level, and the top level the Strategic Level, we see that the existence of this 3-level
structure provides the basis for vertical coherence in the organization. This 3-level pattern is
called the "Alberts Pattern".

A similar pattern, called the Cárdenas-Rivas pattern, was discovered in Mexico, in which the
lowest level contained over 250 design options. These were placed into 20 categories, and the
latter were placed into 4 areas. The project involved redesign of the Systems Engineering
curriculum in ITESM (sometimes called the "Monterrey Institute of Technology ").

Patterns of the type described can be developed with the support of the IM system For more
details, see:

Roxana Cárdenas and Jose C. Rivas (1995): "Teaching Design and Designing Teaching", in
Integrated Design and Process Technology (A. Ertas, C V Ramamoorthy, M.. M. Tanik,
L. L. Esat, F. Veniali, and Taleb-Bendiab, Editors), IDPT-Vol. 1, Austin, TX, 111-116.

Henry C. Alberts (1995), "Redesigning the United States Defense Acquisition System", (Ph. D.
Dissertation) Department of Systems Science, City University, London, U. K

19. What changes in higher education should be considered to challenge

complexity? What is required to make such changes? Who is presently
considering such changes in higher education? What would be the impact of
such changes on engineering and organizations?

The redesign of institutions of higher education along the lines indicated by the foregoing is
described in detail in John N. Warfield (1996): "The Wandwaver Solution: Creating the Great
University” This document is available on the Internet at:
Page 29
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/t-iasis. The requirements for making such changes are
described in the report.

Two organizations have shown some interest. These are The Ohio State University College of
Education (Professor Larry Magliocca) and The Colorado School of Mines (Dr. Robert Knecht).

Organizations and engineering could be dramatically impacted by such changes, because they
could revitalize communication and support the design of systems having broad scope from a
scientific basis. Similar benefits could accrue to the social sciences which are heavily
fragmented, and which present incoherent disciplinary images to students.

20. How is the foregoing relevant to Organization "X"?

This question, if it is to be answered, will be answered by individuals in Organization X, who

have seen the impact of complexity, and who are able to connect what is said here with what is
going on in their organization.

Page 30